TRANSPORTED EVALUATION REPORT June 2016
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TRANSPORTED EVALUATION REPORT June 2016 By MB Associates Authors: Mandy Barnett and Ruth Melville Evaluators: Charlotte Eade, Clare Thurman, Jenny Young. Art on Lorries Unveiling © Electric Egg Transported Evaluation Report - June 2016 Transported Evaluation Report - June 2016 Acknowledgements Contents By combining two quite different approaches to evaluation this has been a big and complex task, made rewarding by the Acknowledgements ...........................................................2 3d. Results: What was due to Transported?......................87 continued support and enthusiasm of Elaine Knight, Richard Contents ............................................................................3 What was due to Transported..........................................87 Erwin-Jones and Nick Jones of Transported. Broad and deep extrapolation ........................................ 88 Summary We would also particularly like to thank the Events Team Background ..................................................................... 5 4. Return on Investment...................................................89 Assistants, who gathered so much of the evidence we’ve Results ............................................................................ 6 A note on content .......................................................... 89 used, especially Grace Osbourne, Joan Rushton, Linda Return on investment .....................................................12 Measuring Value ............................................................ 89 Barnett and Suu Wernham. Full Report The investment .............................................................. 89 And we would like to thank the participating partners and The returns .....................................................................91 About this report .............................................................14 artists in the SROI analyses: Carole Miles, Helen Thomas, Social Return On Investment ...........................................92 John Charlesworth, Joseph Hillier, Katie Smith, Liz Kelleher, Glossary ...........................................................................15 5. Recommendations .......................................................95 Neil Baker, Nicola Rogers, Phiona Richards, Roger Keeling, 1. Context and scope ........................................................16 Strategic recommendations .......................................... 95 Ron Frayne, Tony Wade and Wendy Gilham-Skinner. The programme ..............................................................16 Management recommendations .................................... 96 Local Context ..................................................................17 Delivery recommendations ............................................ 96 2. The Evaluation Methodology .........................................20 Evaluation recommendations .........................................97 Purpose and scope .........................................................20 Stakeholders ..................................................................20 Festivals. Tangled Feet. © Kamal Prashar Appendices ......................................................................98 Methodology ..................................................................21 Consultation and evidence .............................................22 2a. Evaluation Framework ................................................23 How and what? ‘Quality Intent’ ........................................23 Why? The difference Transported makes .........................24 3. Results .........................................................................26 3a. Results: Delivery summary .........................................27 Three phases of work ......................................................27 The whole programme ....................................................27 Working in partnership ...................................................31 3b Results: ACE research questions .................................32 1. Are people from places of least engagement experiencing and inspired by the arts? ............................32 2. To what extent was the aspiration for excellence of art and excellence of the process of engaging communities achieved? ..................................................43 3. Which approaches were successful and what were the lessons learnt? .........................................................52 3c. Results: Social impact ................................................70 A note on content ...........................................................70 Personal and social outcomes ........................................70 2 3 Transported Evaluation Report - June 2016 Background The evaluation methodology 4. Evaluation is of the whole three-year programme. It 1. Transported is one of 21 Creative People and Places (CPP) addresses three ACE research questions: SUMMARY programmes funded by Arts Council England (ACE) with 1 Are people from places of least engagement £2.6M, from 2012 to March 2016, with its launch to the experiencing and inspired by the arts? public in May 2013. It is the project for Boston and South 2 To what extent was the aspiration for excellence of art Holland in the Fens in South Lincolnshire. Its primary aim and excellence of the process of engaging communities is to engage the unengaged with high quality art but it will achieved? reach beyond arts participation to create social impact. 3 Which approaches were successful and what were the 2. Boston and South Holland are sparsely populated rural lessons learnt? areas, mostly white, with increasing Eastern Europe 5. It goes onto assess social outcomes to make the case to migration. Arts participation was below the national local partners. average levels of cultural participation in 2010 by between 6% (the arts in Boston) and 14% (museums and 6. The Evaluation methodology is ‘broad and deep’ with galleries in South Holland)1. The area is under-served by evidence from Transported’s large audience survey dataset ACE funded provision. Art on Lorries. Alicia Miller. © Electric Egg Ltd. and in-depth research in four projects to look at their SROI (Social Return On Investment). SROI is a value-for-money 3. Unlike some CPP areas, Boston and South Holland are methodology which uses proxy values for less tangible not highly deprived, but GCSE results are well below outcomes to compare to investment. Whole programme the national average and smoking, drinking and obesity evaluation also compared event typologies (Fun, are significant factors for ill-health. Wellbeing though, Captivating, Engrossing and Locally Resonant) with inputs matches the national average. Take up of physical (investment and demographics) to see what worked. activity, cultural activity, social media and social activism are all limited; the area has low ‘participation’ 7. The stakeholders were in four groups: audiences, for more than just for the arts. participants including partners, artists and Transported staff, and the wider local economy. Festivals. Ruth Pigott and Julie The evaluation framework Willoughby. © Electric Egg Ltd. 8. The evaluation is framed by the ‘Quality Intent’ of Transported and a chain of events that creates a ‘Story of Change’ leading to outcomes and testing which approaches are successful. 9. ACE question 1 is answered in the main by a large audience dataset collected at the majority of events. Question 2 is answered by examining the ‘Creative Intent’ and immediate, tangible delivery outcomes. The chain of events goes on to explore question 3 about which approaches work throughout, including whether the Quality Intent leads to outcomes. 1 Active People survey, 2010 5 Transported Evaluation Report - June 2016 Transported Evaluation Report - June 2016 Evaluation framework/chain of events shaped by Quality Intent to test what approaches work Results: ACE research questions 1. Are people from places of least engagement experiencing and inspired by the arts? How? What? Why? 13. Answering the first part of this question, Transported’s audience so far is local, and demographically more or less matches the Quality intent local population. As is the case nationally, there are more women than men attending. Just over half are in the age range 25 to 3 Delivery intent Creative intent Delivery outcomes Personal and social outcomes Economic outcomes 44, though people come from across the age spectrum. Most come with family and most are white, though at least 9% do not speak English as their first language. Of those, most are Eastern European. Celebrate Increase demand, 14. From socio-economic groups, Transported attracts above the local average in lower income and transient groups, and below Approaches people, place from places of least that inspire 1 the local average in more well off groups who are not the target market, which is a good result. From arts marketing groups, Demand and heritage engagement Social outcome; sense of place and we see the local population is much skewed towards those who don’t normally attend the arts, and Transported audiences community match the population (or exceeded it, in terms of attracting people least likely to engage). We can see that Transported is Partnerships, Work that is: effectively attracting its target market. R&D and value Knock on effect Create material Fun Everyday on families, Saving & Excellent art culture and improve 15. However, we do also see that this demographic has shifted slightly as events begin to be